Tony, those are laws put in place. That doesn't mean people are immediately going to accept them 'just because'.
You bring up the Civil Rights Movement, and you know certainly even better than I do that people STILL discriminate based upon race and STILL to not treat everyone equally, even with laws that have been in place for decades.
People can yell and scream and litigate all they like, it's only time that will bring genuine acceptance. And even then, not from everyone.
I predicted this very scenario six months ago and everything I said back then was pretty much spot on with what Todd and the rest of the panel said here.
Read it if you have a few minutes. It'll maybe make my point of view clearer.
Glen Hazelwood : I get your argument, and it one have heard dozens of time ( albeit this was the most eloquent and articulate) But here is the thing: Discrimination is illegal- for race, gender, religion, creed, country of origin, and sexual orientation. I dont care if the flowershop owner is Catholic or treats everyone with respect- discriminating because a customer is black, gay, atheist, in a interracial relation or whatever is WRONG.
The Civil rights movement passed national legislation that makes it a crime not to serve/rent/hire a person based on their race a crime. Why should sexual orientation be any different? 'Oh because im a Christian" Baloney! Do we allow Strict Muslims/Christians to have their way with their wives ( essentially raping them) just because its a belief found in their holy texts? NO!. Because when you live in a society, you play by society's rules. This isn't about acceptance- internallyl people can hate/dislike gay people all they want. But they shouldn't be able tot fire them, not hire them, not rent to them, or serve them because of their sexual orientation ( or race or religion etc). It's called Equality.
Yes, true acceptance only comes with time, but allowing people to discriminate against others works against this process. As someone who professes to have gay friends, perhaps you should put yourself in their shoes, an imagine how being discriminated on a daily basis might feel
I think that people do more harm to a cause by trying to force it upon folks or hurt them over it then they do by being somewhat more passive about it. There's hardly better evidence of that than the recent OWS movement. They came out agressive and forceful and were relentless in thrusting their cause on people, and by doing so they turned off many people that otherwise would have every reason to be behind them.
I think by going after this couples beliefs and possibly even their livelihood, you foster more hatred and non-acceptance in them. If they sue this couple for a million dollars and win, what reason would the couple possibly have to begin genuinely accepting them? Why in the world would they NOT resent them? Whereas by taking a less agressive stance, you maybe start to make them think. You make them see that gays or blacks or whoever are just plain old people with the same wants and needs in life as they have. Because as hard as it may be to take, people like that may really not get that. You 'humanize' it for them and maybe that's just what they need to get started. And while that doesn't do this particular couple any good, maybe it helps the next one, or the next one after that.
And I think that when all is said and done, even a hundred years from now, a respect won is infinitely more powerful then a respect legislated.
Not one thing you said in your reply is wrong or inaccurate, Tony. I think where we start to differ is in the approach to it. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that at all. That's the sort of thing where intelligent people learn from each other and consider different thinking. Maybe somewhere in between is where we should both strive for.
Glen Hazelwood : i truly agree on what you said. Your right thta the 'force' approach won't make many friends or accepting people. i agree.. however i think rights of the oppressed are simply more important than not making a few waves…Should we just wait til people treat gays equally on their own?
"Justice delayed is justice denied"- MLK jr.
"Power concedes nothing without a demand"- Fredrick Douglas
I do not claim to be a student of the Civil Rights Movement or Martin Luther King Jr. outside of what I learned in school years ago combined with the common sense and logic I've cultivated over those years. And it occured to me to ponder what Dr. King might've thought of this.
So I will comfortably defer to you on this question, Tony…
Do you believe MLK Jr. would've pursed legal action against this couple or tried to impede their livelihood in any way, or that he'd have taken the 'patience/tolerance' route in this case?
I would also like to say that I'm enjoying this exchange a lot, Tony. Thank you.
What of the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of the Christian couple? They have a right to religious freedom, and their religion does not accept homosexuality.
I get it that this is not what a typical college student would want to be doing on a Friday night, so please don't feel obligated to resond tonight. lol
Glen Hazelwood Would MLK Jr. have taken patience and tolerance rout?. First often, you can't and don't tolerate intolerance- doing so is to allow intolerance, its a logical paradox. Legal battles and lawsuits where very much a part of the Civil Rights Movement and struggle for black freedom dating back to freedom suits ( ie the Dred Scott Case)
Glen Hazelwood :Mmmm…( lol, not much to do i tonite i guess-) mmmm… I also think it's interesting how the Christian couple is the victim.- Poor Christian couple who is having their "livelihood" taken away. Now they do have rights, but discrimination isn't one of them. Religious freedom doesn't mean you can do whatever you want as long as you find some religious justification. Remember that slavery, rape, racism, and antisemitism have all been "religious beliefs". The entire religious argument doesn't even make sense btw,( why not deny people with cut hair, or wearing polyester which are both sins in the Bible) but lets concede that not approving of gay people is a valid religious belief. So? That doesn't mean you have the right to deny people service. (If) I don't agree with tattoos/Muslims wearing burkas/obesity, but i can't kick someone with them out a bar i own. Me serving them isn't me condoning who they are or what they do.
Jesus didn't turn his nose up at the tax collector or prostitute. He went to their homes and treated them as equals even though other did not. "Do undo others as you would have them do unto you" What about that religious belief?
Tony Lamar Ivey Not livelihood. Their choice to engage in business the way they see fit. The logical conclusion to telling someone they MUST do business with certain people or groups is government control of your choice – which isn't choice, it is slavery.
Riley Secrist : lol, i find this so ironic. So if they refused to host an interracial couple, you'd be ok with that. Blacks, Jews, Muslims, all denied because they "wanted to engage in business the way the say fit". Discrimination is illegal, deal with it. How bout we bring back "whites only" signs? "straights only" ? is that the equality, justice, and tolerance America is about?
Tony Lamar Ivey Your foray into the extreme doesn't help your case. It also doesn't change the fact that you are artificially injecting "tolerance" into human relations when it cannot easily fit sometimes.
Did you know that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 wasn't the first one? The first was considered unconstitutional because it was deemed governmet could not tell an individual what they can and cannot do, even discriminate.
Telling me to deal with it is your "Neener neener" moment…hopefully you decide to stray from that childish tactic. I grew up with it, so it doesn't bother me. But I think we can all discuss it freely without ad hominem and straw men.
One of the most "damaging" arguments by the bill's opponents was that once passed, the bill would require forced busing to achieve certain racial quotas in schools.[25] Proponents of the bill, such as Emanuel Celler and Jacob Javits, said that the bill would not authorize such measures. Leading sponsor Hubert Humphrey wrote two amendments specifically designed to outlaw busing.[25] Humphrey said "if the bill were to compel it, it would be a violation [of the Constitution], because it would be handling the matter on the basis of race and we would be transporting children because of race."[25] While Javits said any government official who sought to use the bill for busing purposes "would be making a fool of himself," two years later the Department of Health, Education and Welfare said that Southern school districts would be required to meet mathematical ratios of students by busing.[25]
It's funny how a good intentioned law can really screw other things up. Seems to be the popular mode of legislation in our recent history. I respect the intentions of MLK and the Civil Rights Movement – but legislating to enact equality took the the thunder from MLK and all blacks. Blacks didn't fully earn their equality, in the eyes of many, and so the shadow forms of discrimination were rampant and still are to some extent.
Tony Lamar Ivey how dare you compare the gay agenda to civil rights movement! The bible speaks on racial issues:
"Numbers 12:1-10
And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married: for he had married an Ethiopian woman. And they said, "Hath the LORD indeed spoken only by Moses? hath he not spoken also by us?" And the LORD heard it.
Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the surface of the earth. And the LORD spake suddenly unto Moses, and unto Aaron, and unto Miriam, Come out ye three unto the tabernacle of the congregation. And they three came out.
And the Lord came down in the pillar of the cloud, and stood in the door of the tabernacle, and called Aaron and Miriam: and they both came forth. And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I the LORD will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream. My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all my house.WIth him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches, and the similitude of the LORD shall he behold: wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?
And the anger of the LORD was kindled against them, and he departed. And the cloud departed from off the tabernacle, and behold, Miriam became leprous, white as snow, and Aaron looked upon Miriam, and behold, she was leprous."
And the bible speaks against homosexuality. Once again, you're argument fails….epically…
When this stuff starts to hit the Supreme Court, they are literally going to be tasked with invalidating the Constitutional rights of millions, whichever way they decide.
This is going to be amazing and scary to watch.
Glen Hazelwood Civil Rights Reformation should have never been accomplished through legislation and has created this scenario. I understand how, at the time, it was probably viewed as the only way to protect minorities (and, in fact, probably was). It doesn't change the fact that they removed, just like you said, the rights of some and gave them to others.
Personally, I think it is ridiculous to turn away business based on religion. But I think they have a right to do so. What is truly scary is how much further the Civil Rights Act could be taken to include all manner of 'groups' of people. The individual will be destroyed and you will be required to identify with a group…
Riley Secrist Ad hominem? How did i attack your character or you personally? In any case i don't see how you refuting my point. Discrimination is not a legal way to run a business pure and simple. If it's not ok for chauvinists, racists, or antisemitism, it should be ok for homophones no matter what their religion. By doing so you are puting one's religion above anothers civil liberties and rights.
Leon Guthrie I dare to compare the Civil Rights MVt to the Gay rights movement, because I'm educated on both ahd see the striking similarities. Hate is hate: you see such acts reflected in Nazi Germany, the middle East, WW Japan, Haitit, and wherever hate is allowed to flourish. Quoting Bible verse is highly irrelevant to this conversation, and if you can't see that, than there's no point in continuing.
Glen Hazelwood : Gay rights cases are expected to hit the Supreme Court this year; but PLEASE tell me whose Constitutional rights are being violated?? Freedom of Religion doesn't give the right to discriminate. It's a common tactic of the oppressor to mask efforts by the oppressed as being attack to their freedom- see Brown v Board, Loving V Virgina, Plessy, v Ferguson, Dred Scott Case, and and the entire Civil War. Ridiculous notions all.
Riley Secrist "Civil Rights Reformation should have never been accomplished through legislation": this is without a doubt the most, ignorant, uneducated, ridiculous thing i have ever heard. Fredrick Douglas said it best " Power concedes nothing without a demand" Whites refused to give Blacks the right already given to them by the Constitution, and it required the force of legislation ( and other acts) to give even the most basic human rights to black Americas. Your problem is that,equality is a two-way street. If blacks could to it (oh no) gays could to it do. Well they are, and its im glad for it, because it's the same system that allowed by grandparents to sit in the front of the bus.
Leon Guthrie : oh btw Leon. Wanna know what people thought about race/religion before? Google "Curse of Ham" and research the Loving v Virginia 1969 trial…crazy isn't it? People will and have used whatever they want, including the Bible to support their own bigotry- don't be sucked in kid.
Tony Lamar Ivey So you're saying that although the law gave them equal rights and whites didn't recognize them, more laws were necessary? That's pretty entertaining. The entire black population could have economically shut down most southern cities. But I see you didn't address my point about the government taking the power away from the black population. Call me ignorant all you want, it doesn't change the truth.
I guess the ad hominem you won't figure out since you are so busy engaging in it. Regardless, you seem to be approaching this from an emotional stance. I get that. But it seriously clouds your thoughts. I agree that discrimination is wrong, but the concept of discrimination is so open to interpretation that we will be seeing ill effects of legislation preventing it for decades. Anytime the government comes in and tells me how I should run my business, it is, in fact, a form of slavery. We benefit from this to some extent, but recognize it for what it is so that we can catch it before it outruns its own scope.
The good it accomplished then is being paid for today and tomorrow.
Tony Lamar Ivey I'm starting to see how brainwashed you are. The Civil War was about slavery as much as the Emancipation Proclamation freed slaves. It's fine to believe what you believe, but I recommend highly that you look at other viewpoints as it is clear your education is coming from one side. It does explain your ignorance of the Constitution, though.
Riley Secrist : I'll try to be less condescending in my tone, but it's proving difficult. For one, yes more laws were needed.It took 100 yrs for blacks to get the rights, the Civil War already gave them. Jim Crow allowed the government and legal system to circumvent the 14 and 15 amendments. Government took power away from the black population? I don't understand where you are coming from there.
Your viewpoint about discrimination is a classic example of the false oppression of the majority. Dred Scott's slaveowner was painted as a poor old widow who's last slave was her only source of income…poor white woman. The fact that a human was treated as a piece of chattal is irrelevant because it doesn't benefit the majority. It's really sad you feel that way, because it represents the last effects of that kind of immoral logic.
Riley Secrist Theres no denying the effectiveness in the Emancipation P. in the Civil War. I 'm unclear how that relates. But basically your point is social and civil justice shouldn't be exercised through legislation. History proves that is the only way. 'It was ok for blacks but racism is bad, but its not ok for gays because homophobia is good.' that's ironic, but thats the way it works. It's the politics of power and the oppression of the majority ( hint hint, it's why so many of the founding fathers demanded a Bill of Rights- because they knew the majority/powerful wouldn't protect the rights of the minority or powerless)
Tony Lamar Ivey It is the only way it has worked, but not the only way it COULD work. It has proven to be the fastest way of making change happen, and with serious side effects to our society due to forced acceptance. It took courage to fly in the face of accepted discrimination. But forcing acceptance on people through legislation is almost as bad, if not as bad, for society.
Government doesn't creaty society, it's the other way around. Do I dispute the fact that good came from CRA? No, but I like to recognize both sides of the story. There were consequences that came from it. So your insistence that I feel like an oppressed majority is based on your emotional argument, it seems.
"How could someone DARE question the Civil Rights Act? He must be racist, even if he doesn't realize it!" That's how you sound.
Riley Secrist This is such a ridiculous conversation….Riley, if you honestly think people simply need time to give up power to the minority, and legislation is not needed then fine you can think that way.- But please try to find what reputable Political Science/Law/Civil Rights scholar who would agree with you: i happen to personally know several.
Riley Secrist: it's not "forcing acceptance" it enforcing equality. Equality, that is oftentimes already on the books (Constitution, Bill of Rights, 14th amendment) but people blatantly ignore it like with Jim Crow and grandfather voting laws.
Tony Lamar Ivey What is ridiculous is that you haven't bothered to carry your ideas to their logical conlusion. I understand your desire to have power, but you do realize that power comes at a cost, right?
I can take my ideas to their logical conclusion, and I don't think it is viable, either. But I see the sliding scale of liberty, and to protect everyone's liberties you have to protect those you don't agree with as well. Otherwise, it is the majority deciding what morality is or is not.
Everyone involved's Constitutional rights are being violated, Tony. You get it how the gay couple's are, and I agree with you that they are. But you won't allow for the possibility that the other couple are as well. You're working based upon your interpretation of the laws. But others will have different interpretations of these laws that are just as valid as yours, and therein lies the problem.
Your interpretation of these peoples right to freedom of religious belief reduces that freedom to little more than a feeble argument against your point, and you are dead wrong on that. And please believe me that I don't easily say someone is 'wrong' in their opinion, but you are in this case.
The right to freedom of religious belief is the main reason many of the early settlers even came here. It's not something to be trivialized the way you're doing. That freedom is, in fact, one of the very first things the founding fathers thought of when putting together the 'instruction manual' for being an American citizen.
Have people misused that right in the past? Surely they have.
Are these particular people doing that? Quite possibly they are.
But you have to start off with the approach that they are not if you wish to claim any level of objectivity at all.
Glen Hazelwood Discrimination is not a right. And the religious belief thing is bogus. Why don't christian business deny Jewish or Muslim people. They don't agree with their beliefs or lifestyle, right? People don't like gay people pure and simple. You can cover it up with "family values", religioin or whatever but it's not. It's hate, and it's shouldn't be tolerated. You you honestly belief its religious beleifs that are making people discriminate against LGBT's than you need to do some serious studying of the historical study of hate and intolerance. It's a cover up that has been used hundreds of times be for- don't be fooled.
Riley Secrist ? how is it not hate? The couple from the article doesn't agree with Jews, but I would expect doesn't treat them differently. What about a gay couple made their actions so fundamentally different?
Again, Tony…I'm not disagreeing with you that it's wrong to discriminate against these people. But there is a fundamental difference between what the Bible says about other religions and what it says about homosexuality.
Man, I'm no Bible scholar. I'm agnostic for crying out loud. lol
But as best as I know, Christians do not necessarily agree with the teachings and philosophies of the other religions, but do not look upon the practitioners of those religions as sinners (check me on that if you like because I'm not 100% sure of myself), while homosexuality is certainly considered a sin by Christians.
I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying that's the reality of it.
One of the main premises of Christianity is that all humans are descended from Adam and Eve, therefore if either of those two figures were homosexual, mankind would not even exist. That's thousands of years of doctrine you're going up against and whether you like it or not, and whether you're correct or not, it's going to take more than some laws and you saying so to make it change.
I think I've said this before, but it bears repeating….I don't think you and I are all that far off in our feelings on this, Tony. I just think you're argument would be so much stronger if tempered with a little patience and tolerence toward those whose minds you're trying to change. I see how that could read as condescending and I want to be very clear that that is not my intention. Ultimately I believe your point of view will prevail. But I think it could be a much easier trip there if you were a little more open to other perspectives. Just something to ponder.
Hard to believe Todd hasn't kicked us out of here yet. heh…
So, you want to investigate these people for abiding to their religion when dealing with homosexuality? Really, guys? Why don't you investigate muslims for not eating pork. This is ridiculous.
Thats because 'pork' isnt a person. You can't discriminate no matter what you religion is. If im Muslim can i refuse to serve a Women with a job or education?- Nonsense. Didn't Jesus teach about treating people equally…said nothing about that whole gay issue btw.
Tony Lamar Ivey the bible is very clear on it's stance on homosexuality, both in the new and old testament. They run a business and refuse to serve people who are gay which is against their religion. What's the problem??? Do they serve man or God? You can't make them go against what there religion stands for. That, in itself, is an atrocity.
Leon Guthrie : It was once thought that cutting you hair, using contraceptives, and wearing polyester goes against Christian religion. A Muslim man once claimed religious persecution for being arrested for raping his wife. According to him the Koran supported taking his wife whenever he wanted. Is that ok? Kid, read a book. Religions ( since they can conflict with others, or different interpretations) cannot override secular law.
Tony Lamar Ivey You calling him a kid shows your emotion and it further devalues your already baseless arguments you've made here. I've tried to be civil but you are a punk. You are probably intelligent, but prefer to loudly proclaim your indignation for debate. Your idea of debate has been to change the subject and use your tit-for-tat comments. Then you try to say that because it is law, others' arguments don't matter, then continue to argue.
Tony Lamar Ivey HAHAHA! Just pissed myself after reading you calling me a kid! LMAO! Son, I'm a 10 year combat Marine Corps vet. Far from a kid. I've seen and did things that will have you balled up in the corner of your shower, wet and naked, trying to light a cigarette crying for ya momma. I've been all over the world…twice…While your worldly travels haven't left your textbooks, turning pages in some musky-smelling library. And the cockiness of your picture just screams of a little lost young black man stressing on how he's gonna leave his mark in the world. Quit riding the ghostly coatails of MLK and make a life for yourself. Right now, YOU are becoming a slave to those liberal professors who is slowly pushing their agenda on you. And like a fat kid in a donut shop, you're eating it up.
Leon Guthrie ?? uhh..what? Kinda overwhelmed here. I could clarify a few things, like how my 'cocky' picture is actually a humorous one ( im wearing hamburger ear-muffs), or your claim that im a liberal, but lets focus on the issue….So what about what i sad was untrue? You just made a lot of ad homenium attacks ( which may have been justified for my 'kid' remark. I would add that what good are worldly travels, and courageous experience without the learning of wisdom and tolerance? ( not saying you aren't wise, just commenting on your downplaying of intellectualism)
If you're going to open a place for the public like this that gets federal tax dollars and support you have to play by societies rules- NO discrimination- pure 'n' simple.
Dude, what are you talking about? This is a private business bro. They can do as they see fit. Where in the vid did it say this public bed and breakfast was funded by fed money? Really?
So, under your theory, if I want I can march into a church or a mosque or a temple and sacrifice a goat on their alter because I have freedom of religion. There are points beyond which you cannot go when it is private property. The fact that I disagree with the policy of the owners of a private bed and breakfast does not mean that they have no right to have such a policy. I would not be comfortable staying in their establishment and see no problem with the gay community (or those like me who think it is no one's business what other people do in their bedrooms so long as they are adults and it is with consent) boycotting that establishment.
Print This Post
FOX News Talk
You cannot legislate acceptance.
http://www.planetcommonsense.wordpress.com
? Voting Rights Act, Civil Right Movement, Brown v Board, etc…
Tony, those are laws put in place. That doesn't mean people are immediately going to accept them 'just because'.
You bring up the Civil Rights Movement, and you know certainly even better than I do that people STILL discriminate based upon race and STILL to not treat everyone equally, even with laws that have been in place for decades.
People can yell and scream and litigate all they like, it's only time that will bring genuine acceptance. And even then, not from everyone.
Tony, I wrote this piece back in June when NY passed legislation allowing gay marriage….
http://planetcommonsense.wordpress.com/2011/06/27/the-pursuit-of-happiness/
I predicted this very scenario six months ago and everything I said back then was pretty much spot on with what Todd and the rest of the panel said here.
Read it if you have a few minutes. It'll maybe make my point of view clearer.
Glen Hazelwood : I get your argument, and it one have heard dozens of time ( albeit this was the most eloquent and articulate) But here is the thing: Discrimination is illegal- for race, gender, religion, creed, country of origin, and sexual orientation. I dont care if the flowershop owner is Catholic or treats everyone with respect- discriminating because a customer is black, gay, atheist, in a interracial relation or whatever is WRONG.
The Civil rights movement passed national legislation that makes it a crime not to serve/rent/hire a person based on their race a crime. Why should sexual orientation be any different? 'Oh because im a Christian" Baloney! Do we allow Strict Muslims/Christians to have their way with their wives ( essentially raping them) just because its a belief found in their holy texts? NO!. Because when you live in a society, you play by society's rules. This isn't about acceptance- internallyl people can hate/dislike gay people all they want. But they shouldn't be able tot fire them, not hire them, not rent to them, or serve them because of their sexual orientation ( or race or religion etc). It's called Equality.
Yes, true acceptance only comes with time, but allowing people to discriminate against others works against this process. As someone who professes to have gay friends, perhaps you should put yourself in their shoes, an imagine how being discriminated on a daily basis might feel
I think that people do more harm to a cause by trying to force it upon folks or hurt them over it then they do by being somewhat more passive about it. There's hardly better evidence of that than the recent OWS movement. They came out agressive and forceful and were relentless in thrusting their cause on people, and by doing so they turned off many people that otherwise would have every reason to be behind them.
I think by going after this couples beliefs and possibly even their livelihood, you foster more hatred and non-acceptance in them. If they sue this couple for a million dollars and win, what reason would the couple possibly have to begin genuinely accepting them? Why in the world would they NOT resent them? Whereas by taking a less agressive stance, you maybe start to make them think. You make them see that gays or blacks or whoever are just plain old people with the same wants and needs in life as they have. Because as hard as it may be to take, people like that may really not get that. You 'humanize' it for them and maybe that's just what they need to get started. And while that doesn't do this particular couple any good, maybe it helps the next one, or the next one after that.
And I think that when all is said and done, even a hundred years from now, a respect won is infinitely more powerful then a respect legislated.
Not one thing you said in your reply is wrong or inaccurate, Tony. I think where we start to differ is in the approach to it. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that at all. That's the sort of thing where intelligent people learn from each other and consider different thinking. Maybe somewhere in between is where we should both strive for.
Glen Hazelwood : i truly agree on what you said. Your right thta the 'force' approach won't make many friends or accepting people. i agree.. however i think rights of the oppressed are simply more important than not making a few waves…Should we just wait til people treat gays equally on their own?
"Justice delayed is justice denied"- MLK jr.
"Power concedes nothing without a demand"- Fredrick Douglas
I do not claim to be a student of the Civil Rights Movement or Martin Luther King Jr. outside of what I learned in school years ago combined with the common sense and logic I've cultivated over those years. And it occured to me to ponder what Dr. King might've thought of this.
So I will comfortably defer to you on this question, Tony…
Do you believe MLK Jr. would've pursed legal action against this couple or tried to impede their livelihood in any way, or that he'd have taken the 'patience/tolerance' route in this case?
I would also like to say that I'm enjoying this exchange a lot, Tony. Thank you.
Also….you bring up the rights of the gay couple.
What of the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of the Christian couple? They have a right to religious freedom, and their religion does not accept homosexuality.
I get it that this is not what a typical college student would want to be doing on a Friday night, so please don't feel obligated to resond tonight. lol
I'll be here.
Glen Hazelwood Would MLK Jr. have taken patience and tolerance rout?. First often, you can't and don't tolerate intolerance- doing so is to allow intolerance, its a logical paradox. Legal battles and lawsuits where very much a part of the Civil Rights Movement and struggle for black freedom dating back to freedom suits ( ie the Dred Scott Case)
Glen Hazelwood :Mmmm…( lol, not much to do i tonite i guess-) mmmm… I also think it's interesting how the Christian couple is the victim.- Poor Christian couple who is having their "livelihood" taken away. Now they do have rights, but discrimination isn't one of them. Religious freedom doesn't mean you can do whatever you want as long as you find some religious justification. Remember that slavery, rape, racism, and antisemitism have all been "religious beliefs". The entire religious argument doesn't even make sense btw,( why not deny people with cut hair, or wearing polyester which are both sins in the Bible) but lets concede that not approving of gay people is a valid religious belief. So? That doesn't mean you have the right to deny people service. (If) I don't agree with tattoos/Muslims wearing burkas/obesity, but i can't kick someone with them out a bar i own. Me serving them isn't me condoning who they are or what they do.
Jesus didn't turn his nose up at the tax collector or prostitute. He went to their homes and treated them as equals even though other did not. "Do undo others as you would have them do unto you" What about that religious belief?
Tony Lamar Ivey Not livelihood. Their choice to engage in business the way they see fit. The logical conclusion to telling someone they MUST do business with certain people or groups is government control of your choice – which isn't choice, it is slavery.
Riley Secrist : lol, i find this so ironic. So if they refused to host an interracial couple, you'd be ok with that. Blacks, Jews, Muslims, all denied because they "wanted to engage in business the way the say fit". Discrimination is illegal, deal with it. How bout we bring back "whites only" signs? "straights only" ? is that the equality, justice, and tolerance America is about?
Tony Lamar Ivey Your foray into the extreme doesn't help your case. It also doesn't change the fact that you are artificially injecting "tolerance" into human relations when it cannot easily fit sometimes.
Did you know that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 wasn't the first one? The first was considered unconstitutional because it was deemed governmet could not tell an individual what they can and cannot do, even discriminate.
Telling me to deal with it is your "Neener neener" moment…hopefully you decide to stray from that childish tactic. I grew up with it, so it doesn't bother me. But I think we can all discuss it freely without ad hominem and straw men.
Tony Lamar Ivey
One of the most "damaging" arguments by the bill's opponents was that once passed, the bill would require forced busing to achieve certain racial quotas in schools.[25] Proponents of the bill, such as Emanuel Celler and Jacob Javits, said that the bill would not authorize such measures. Leading sponsor Hubert Humphrey wrote two amendments specifically designed to outlaw busing.[25] Humphrey said "if the bill were to compel it, it would be a violation [of the Constitution], because it would be handling the matter on the basis of race and we would be transporting children because of race."[25] While Javits said any government official who sought to use the bill for busing purposes "would be making a fool of himself," two years later the Department of Health, Education and Welfare said that Southern school districts would be required to meet mathematical ratios of students by busing.[25]
It's funny how a good intentioned law can really screw other things up. Seems to be the popular mode of legislation in our recent history. I respect the intentions of MLK and the Civil Rights Movement – but legislating to enact equality took the the thunder from MLK and all blacks. Blacks didn't fully earn their equality, in the eyes of many, and so the shadow forms of discrimination were rampant and still are to some extent.
Tony Lamar Ivey how dare you compare the gay agenda to civil rights movement! The bible speaks on racial issues:
"Numbers 12:1-10
And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married: for he had married an Ethiopian woman. And they said, "Hath the LORD indeed spoken only by Moses? hath he not spoken also by us?" And the LORD heard it.
Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the surface of the earth. And the LORD spake suddenly unto Moses, and unto Aaron, and unto Miriam, Come out ye three unto the tabernacle of the congregation. And they three came out.
And the Lord came down in the pillar of the cloud, and stood in the door of the tabernacle, and called Aaron and Miriam: and they both came forth. And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I the LORD will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream. My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all my house.WIth him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches, and the similitude of the LORD shall he behold: wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?
And the anger of the LORD was kindled against them, and he departed. And the cloud departed from off the tabernacle, and behold, Miriam became leprous, white as snow, and Aaron looked upon Miriam, and behold, she was leprous."
And the bible speaks against homosexuality. Once again, you're argument fails….epically…
When this stuff starts to hit the Supreme Court, they are literally going to be tasked with invalidating the Constitutional rights of millions, whichever way they decide.
This is going to be amazing and scary to watch.
Glen Hazelwood Civil Rights Reformation should have never been accomplished through legislation and has created this scenario. I understand how, at the time, it was probably viewed as the only way to protect minorities (and, in fact, probably was). It doesn't change the fact that they removed, just like you said, the rights of some and gave them to others.
Personally, I think it is ridiculous to turn away business based on religion. But I think they have a right to do so. What is truly scary is how much further the Civil Rights Act could be taken to include all manner of 'groups' of people. The individual will be destroyed and you will be required to identify with a group…
Riley Secrist Ad hominem? How did i attack your character or you personally? In any case i don't see how you refuting my point. Discrimination is not a legal way to run a business pure and simple. If it's not ok for chauvinists, racists, or antisemitism, it should be ok for homophones no matter what their religion. By doing so you are puting one's religion above anothers civil liberties and rights.
Leon Guthrie I dare to compare the Civil Rights MVt to the Gay rights movement, because I'm educated on both ahd see the striking similarities. Hate is hate: you see such acts reflected in Nazi Germany, the middle East, WW Japan, Haitit, and wherever hate is allowed to flourish. Quoting Bible verse is highly irrelevant to this conversation, and if you can't see that, than there's no point in continuing.
Glen Hazelwood : Gay rights cases are expected to hit the Supreme Court this year; but PLEASE tell me whose Constitutional rights are being violated?? Freedom of Religion doesn't give the right to discriminate. It's a common tactic of the oppressor to mask efforts by the oppressed as being attack to their freedom- see Brown v Board, Loving V Virgina, Plessy, v Ferguson, Dred Scott Case, and and the entire Civil War. Ridiculous notions all.
Riley Secrist "Civil Rights Reformation should have never been accomplished through legislation": this is without a doubt the most, ignorant, uneducated, ridiculous thing i have ever heard. Fredrick Douglas said it best " Power concedes nothing without a demand" Whites refused to give Blacks the right already given to them by the Constitution, and it required the force of legislation ( and other acts) to give even the most basic human rights to black Americas. Your problem is that,equality is a two-way street. If blacks could to it (oh no) gays could to it do. Well they are, and its im glad for it, because it's the same system that allowed by grandparents to sit in the front of the bus.
Leon Guthrie : oh btw Leon. Wanna know what people thought about race/religion before? Google "Curse of Ham" and research the Loving v Virginia 1969 trial…crazy isn't it? People will and have used whatever they want, including the Bible to support their own bigotry- don't be sucked in kid.
Tony Lamar Ivey So you're saying that although the law gave them equal rights and whites didn't recognize them, more laws were necessary? That's pretty entertaining. The entire black population could have economically shut down most southern cities. But I see you didn't address my point about the government taking the power away from the black population. Call me ignorant all you want, it doesn't change the truth.
I guess the ad hominem you won't figure out since you are so busy engaging in it. Regardless, you seem to be approaching this from an emotional stance. I get that. But it seriously clouds your thoughts. I agree that discrimination is wrong, but the concept of discrimination is so open to interpretation that we will be seeing ill effects of legislation preventing it for decades. Anytime the government comes in and tells me how I should run my business, it is, in fact, a form of slavery. We benefit from this to some extent, but recognize it for what it is so that we can catch it before it outruns its own scope.
The good it accomplished then is being paid for today and tomorrow.
Tony Lamar Ivey I'm starting to see how brainwashed you are. The Civil War was about slavery as much as the Emancipation Proclamation freed slaves. It's fine to believe what you believe, but I recommend highly that you look at other viewpoints as it is clear your education is coming from one side. It does explain your ignorance of the Constitution, though.
Riley Secrist : I'll try to be less condescending in my tone, but it's proving difficult. For one, yes more laws were needed.It took 100 yrs for blacks to get the rights, the Civil War already gave them. Jim Crow allowed the government and legal system to circumvent the 14 and 15 amendments. Government took power away from the black population? I don't understand where you are coming from there.
Your viewpoint about discrimination is a classic example of the false oppression of the majority. Dred Scott's slaveowner was painted as a poor old widow who's last slave was her only source of income…poor white woman. The fact that a human was treated as a piece of chattal is irrelevant because it doesn't benefit the majority. It's really sad you feel that way, because it represents the last effects of that kind of immoral logic.
Riley Secrist
Theres no denying the effectiveness in the Emancipation P. in the Civil War. I 'm unclear how that relates. But basically your point is social and civil justice shouldn't be exercised through legislation. History proves that is the only way. 'It was ok for blacks but racism is bad, but its not ok for gays because homophobia is good.' that's ironic, but thats the way it works. It's the politics of power and the oppression of the majority ( hint hint, it's why so many of the founding fathers demanded a Bill of Rights- because they knew the majority/powerful wouldn't protect the rights of the minority or powerless)
Tony Lamar Ivey It is the only way it has worked, but not the only way it COULD work. It has proven to be the fastest way of making change happen, and with serious side effects to our society due to forced acceptance. It took courage to fly in the face of accepted discrimination. But forcing acceptance on people through legislation is almost as bad, if not as bad, for society.
Government doesn't creaty society, it's the other way around. Do I dispute the fact that good came from CRA? No, but I like to recognize both sides of the story. There were consequences that came from it. So your insistence that I feel like an oppressed majority is based on your emotional argument, it seems.
"How could someone DARE question the Civil Rights Act? He must be racist, even if he doesn't realize it!" That's how you sound.
Riley Secrist This is such a ridiculous conversation….Riley, if you honestly think people simply need time to give up power to the minority, and legislation is not needed then fine you can think that way.- But please try to find what reputable Political Science/Law/Civil Rights scholar who would agree with you: i happen to personally know several.
Riley Secrist: it's not "forcing acceptance" it enforcing equality. Equality, that is oftentimes already on the books (Constitution, Bill of Rights, 14th amendment) but people blatantly ignore it like with Jim Crow and grandfather voting laws.
Tony Lamar Ivey What is ridiculous is that you haven't bothered to carry your ideas to their logical conlusion. I understand your desire to have power, but you do realize that power comes at a cost, right?
I can take my ideas to their logical conclusion, and I don't think it is viable, either. But I see the sliding scale of liberty, and to protect everyone's liberties you have to protect those you don't agree with as well. Otherwise, it is the majority deciding what morality is or is not.
Everyone involved's Constitutional rights are being violated, Tony. You get it how the gay couple's are, and I agree with you that they are. But you won't allow for the possibility that the other couple are as well. You're working based upon your interpretation of the laws. But others will have different interpretations of these laws that are just as valid as yours, and therein lies the problem.
Your interpretation of these peoples right to freedom of religious belief reduces that freedom to little more than a feeble argument against your point, and you are dead wrong on that. And please believe me that I don't easily say someone is 'wrong' in their opinion, but you are in this case.
The right to freedom of religious belief is the main reason many of the early settlers even came here. It's not something to be trivialized the way you're doing. That freedom is, in fact, one of the very first things the founding fathers thought of when putting together the 'instruction manual' for being an American citizen.
Have people misused that right in the past? Surely they have.
Are these particular people doing that? Quite possibly they are.
But you have to start off with the approach that they are not if you wish to claim any level of objectivity at all.
Glen Hazelwood Discrimination is not a right. And the religious belief thing is bogus. Why don't christian business deny Jewish or Muslim people. They don't agree with their beliefs or lifestyle, right? People don't like gay people pure and simple. You can cover it up with "family values", religioin or whatever but it's not. It's hate, and it's shouldn't be tolerated. You you honestly belief its religious beleifs that are making people discriminate against LGBT's than you need to do some serious studying of the historical study of hate and intolerance. It's a cover up that has been used hundreds of times be for- don't be fooled.
Tony Lamar Ivey Not everything is hate because you disagree with it. Shed your childish victimology and step into the real world.
Riley Secrist ? how is it not hate? The couple from the article doesn't agree with Jews, but I would expect doesn't treat them differently. What about a gay couple made their actions so fundamentally different?
Tony Lamar Ivey It's not your place to step into the mind of another and decide how they should and should not feel in each situation.
Again, Tony…I'm not disagreeing with you that it's wrong to discriminate against these people. But there is a fundamental difference between what the Bible says about other religions and what it says about homosexuality.
Man, I'm no Bible scholar. I'm agnostic for crying out loud. lol
But as best as I know, Christians do not necessarily agree with the teachings and philosophies of the other religions, but do not look upon the practitioners of those religions as sinners (check me on that if you like because I'm not 100% sure of myself), while homosexuality is certainly considered a sin by Christians.
I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying that's the reality of it.
One of the main premises of Christianity is that all humans are descended from Adam and Eve, therefore if either of those two figures were homosexual, mankind would not even exist. That's thousands of years of doctrine you're going up against and whether you like it or not, and whether you're correct or not, it's going to take more than some laws and you saying so to make it change.
I think I've said this before, but it bears repeating….I don't think you and I are all that far off in our feelings on this, Tony. I just think you're argument would be so much stronger if tempered with a little patience and tolerence toward those whose minds you're trying to change. I see how that could read as condescending and I want to be very clear that that is not my intention. Ultimately I believe your point of view will prevail. But I think it could be a much easier trip there if you were a little more open to other perspectives. Just something to ponder.
Hard to believe Todd hasn't kicked us out of here yet. heh…
What next for Christian underground.
So, you want to investigate these people for abiding to their religion when dealing with homosexuality? Really, guys? Why don't you investigate muslims for not eating pork. This is ridiculous.
Thats because 'pork' isnt a person. You can't discriminate no matter what you religion is. If im Muslim can i refuse to serve a Women with a job or education?- Nonsense. Didn't Jesus teach about treating people equally…said nothing about that whole gay issue btw.
Tony Lamar Ivey the bible is very clear on it's stance on homosexuality, both in the new and old testament. They run a business and refuse to serve people who are gay which is against their religion. What's the problem??? Do they serve man or God? You can't make them go against what there religion stands for. That, in itself, is an atrocity.
Leon Guthrie : It was once thought that cutting you hair, using contraceptives, and wearing polyester goes against Christian religion. A Muslim man once claimed religious persecution for being arrested for raping his wife. According to him the Koran supported taking his wife whenever he wanted. Is that ok? Kid, read a book. Religions ( since they can conflict with others, or different interpretations) cannot override secular law.
Tony Lamar Ivey You calling him a kid shows your emotion and it further devalues your already baseless arguments you've made here. I've tried to be civil but you are a punk. You are probably intelligent, but prefer to loudly proclaim your indignation for debate. Your idea of debate has been to change the subject and use your tit-for-tat comments. Then you try to say that because it is law, others' arguments don't matter, then continue to argue.
Walking contradiction.
Tony Lamar Ivey HAHAHA! Just pissed myself after reading you calling me a kid! LMAO! Son, I'm a 10 year combat Marine Corps vet. Far from a kid. I've seen and did things that will have you balled up in the corner of your shower, wet and naked, trying to light a cigarette crying for ya momma. I've been all over the world…twice…While your worldly travels haven't left your textbooks, turning pages in some musky-smelling library. And the cockiness of your picture just screams of a little lost young black man stressing on how he's gonna leave his mark in the world. Quit riding the ghostly coatails of MLK and make a life for yourself. Right now, YOU are becoming a slave to those liberal professors who is slowly pushing their agenda on you. And like a fat kid in a donut shop, you're eating it up.
Leon Guthrie ?? uhh..what? Kinda overwhelmed here. I could clarify a few things, like how my 'cocky' picture is actually a humorous one ( im wearing hamburger ear-muffs), or your claim that im a liberal, but lets focus on the issue….So what about what i sad was untrue? You just made a lot of ad homenium attacks ( which may have been justified for my 'kid' remark. I would add that what good are worldly travels, and courageous experience without the learning of wisdom and tolerance? ( not saying you aren't wise, just commenting on your downplaying of intellectualism)
If Christians continue to stay silent, things like this will continue to spread. This is a private business! Thanks to Mr. Starnes for reporting this.
If you're going to open a place for the public like this that gets federal tax dollars and support you have to play by societies rules- NO discrimination- pure 'n' simple.
Federal tax dollars? Huh? Maybe I missed that part.
Dude, what are you talking about? This is a private business bro. They can do as they see fit. Where in the vid did it say this public bed and breakfast was funded by fed money? Really?
Leon Guthrie private businesses are still eligible for federal/state tax breaks, and loans
Tony Lamar Ivey Eligible != receiving – tax breaks don't count
So, under your theory, if I want I can march into a church or a mosque or a temple and sacrifice a goat on their alter because I have freedom of religion. There are points beyond which you cannot go when it is private property. The fact that I disagree with the policy of the owners of a private bed and breakfast does not mean that they have no right to have such a policy. I would not be comfortable staying in their establishment and see no problem with the gay community (or those like me who think it is no one's business what other people do in their bedrooms so long as they are adults and it is with consent) boycotting that establishment.